User talk:V.Fungi/sandbox

Peer-Review[edit]

The format and outline of the article is very straight forward and I generally enjoyed reading the topics provided. However, I’m not sure about the “critiquing Halocine” entry. From what I recall in the training, Wikipedia is fact based so I’m not sure if it needs to be added. Perhaps maybe as a side note, but I recommend taking it out from the beginning and starting with a lead instead of a critique. I suggest using the introduction as a lead and putting it above the contents box. I’m also a little confused about the (JO, VF and JM) parts of the tile as well as the [edit| edit sources] in the title as well. A.ctu12 (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

==Cyanobiont Critique==
I agree with A.ctu12 about the format and the heading formats. I would rephrase the first sentence to make it more straightforward and use a different word than "encompassing" the first sentence...perhaps something like *"Cyanobionts are symbiotic cyanobacteria that reside in plants, algae, fungi, etc." What is meant by "sufficient elasticity"/ why is that an important characteristic of cyanobionts? Make sure headings are properly capitalized.
Good "functional role" section; especially this sentence: "To keep up with the large nitrogen demand of both the symbiotic partner and itself, cyanobionts fix nitrogen at a higher rate, as compared to their free-living counterparts, by *increasing frequency of heterocyst formation [2]." Perhaps expand on the other roles besides N-fixation like UV protection, too. Make sure all facts are cited (ex. "To maintain a successful symbiosis, cyanobacteria following host *infection, will need to match their life cycles with those of their hosts'" and the end of the "Genetics" section). Some spelling/ grammar errors in the "Maintenance" section. Good topic choices. Good Neutral tone. JWIK (talk) 18:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Critique -It's very well written and gets straight to the point

-There are no glaring grammatical errors

-I really liked the section on genetic modifications within the host, however is there a citation for the last sentence in the section or is it just conjecture based on the previous few sentences?

-In the functional role of cyanobionts, you don't seem to explain what metabolite is? Also, you don't seem to cite a lot of information in this section, which I'm assuming came from sources such as the UV section.

-Your lead was very well written and was very informative Mehtab228 (talk) 04:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

peer review - Cyanobiont[edit]

Overall, It was well written and I like the organization of content and the introduction paragraph. I really liked the section about Genetic Modifications Within Host but I didn't see any citations for last three sentences, which i think you should include. I agree with A.ctu12 about using your introduction as a lead and putting it before the contents and that you should take off the part about critiquing halocline - which was a bit confusing. Nice job on the article, it was very interesting :) Shayinik (talk) 03:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]